Roxanne Lieb
Lee Fish
Todd Crosby

Washington State Institute for Public Policy
The Evergreen State College
Seminar 3162, MS: TA-00
Olympia, Washington 98505
(360) 866-6000, extension 6380

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1 SECTION ONE: POLICY ORIENTATION TOWARD JUVENILE JUSTICE....................... 2 SECTION TWO: KEY TRENDS IN STATES.................................................................... 10 APPENDIX ONE: SUPPORTING DATA.......................................................................... 38 APPENDIX TWO: JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS IN SEVEN STATES........................ 42 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................ 57

TABLE 1: WASHINGTON'S RECIDIVISM RATE IN COMPARISON............................. 11 TABLE 2: RECIDIVISM RATES IN FLORIDA'S JUVENILE PROGRAMS...................... 12 TABLE 3: MAXIMUM AGE OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION............................................ 31 TABLE 4: JUVENILE JUSTICE FACILITIES: RATIO OF BED TYPE............................ 34 TABLE 5: LOWER AGE OF JUVENILE COURT JURISDICTION................................... 38 TABLE 6: JUVENILE JUSTICE STATE-OPERATED BEDS........................................... 39 TABLE 7: AT-RISK YOUTH POPULATION.................................................................... 41

The 1994 Legislature determined that Washington's juvenile justice system requires
"substantial revision," and created a legislative task force to review the system. To assist in
this endeavor, the Institute reviewed the major trends in the nation regarding juvenile justice.

1.Transfer to Adult Court: Transfer of juveniles to adult court has been a major focus of
legislative attention throughout the country. Most states now prosecute some juveniles as
adults, and nearly half of the states have specifically excluded some offenses, and youth with
particular criminal histories, from juvenile court jurisdiction. States differ in their decision
regarding where the juvenile prosecuted as an adult is confined. Some states, including

2.Runaways: Children who run away from home and those who commit acts that would not
be criminal offenses if they were conducted by adults--"status offenders"--pose difficult policy
choices. Since the federal legislation in 1974, the incentive of $40 million annually has been
used to reward states that comply with the mandate that status offenders be removed from
confinement settings. Most, if not all, states comply. This "deinstitutionalization" of status
offenders, however, has not been a panacea. The federal Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention has concluded that deinstitutionalization has "too often meant, not
transferring youth from reform schools to caring environments, but releasing them to the
exploitation of the streets."

3.Confidentiality of Juvenile Proceedings/Records: The increasing seriousness of
juvenile crime has caused policymakers to rethink confidentiality laws for juveniles. The
traditional emphasis has been on protecting juveniles; thus, court records are sealed and
courtrooms closed to the public. Reducing this confidentiality has been a common theme in
juvenile system reform efforts.Washington reduced the confidentiality of juvenile
proceedings in 1977, and the legislature has passed several laws requiring that certain
juvenile crimes be calculated as part of an adult's criminal history.

4.Role of the Prosecutor: Many states are shifting discretion toward the prosecutor,
typically removing the power from probation staff. Washington implemented this reform with its
1977 law, placing additional responsibilities in the prosecutor's office. Where Washington
differs from other states that have shifted discretion to the prosecutor is the legislatively-
adopted guidelines covering sanctions for all adjudicated juveniles. Thus, the prosecutor plays
a major role but does not have free rein.